Primitivism - Flogging a centuries dead horse.

lets not forget Marx whooping the ass of that cunt Malthus.

Daniel Quinn's wanky apologism for reactionary bullshit and his reliance on a malthusian model of population to food supply.

Like Alan Partridge?

Nick, I think you may have just missed out on Username who was run off before you arrived - but a search under Memberlist will find you a couple of funny threads.

I don't think Morris can be called a primitivist - he may have wanted to maintain traditional craft methods of manufacture, but primitivists would be against those as well I reckon. Even the Luddite's weren't anti-technology as such and certainly weren't anti-civilisation. Probably the closest I've seen to primitivism is the kind of thing millenarian christians were saying in the 15th century - Heresy of the Free Spirit etc. in my view they were progressive for their time - if everything is viewed through the prism of religion then in context they were very modern - no excuse to emulate them now 500 years later. And anyway, they were pre-Enlightment and pre-industrial revolution, so weren't arguing to reverse it like primmies do.

i don't think nick means that morris or the other ones he mentioned were actually primmo's, rather that they offered critiques that the primmos claim as their own and portray as something new.

essentially primmivitism seems like the indigestion of someone who has stuffed themselves at the feast and swears never to eat another bite, just like the indegistion its sum outcome is noxious and smelly though thankfully fades into air pretty quickly.

Quality pamphlet from http://www.seesharppress.com

Shame its not online anywhere!

Looks good RKN.

I think you're right, and that's a fair enough assertion to make. I still think it's worth pointing out the contextual basis for some of those ideas - one which means they're generally trying to change the course of current trends, not so much return to a golden age, but then I've not actually read Morris apart from snippets, so could be talking out my arse.

That all makes sense. Even the mention of primitivism makes me twitchy, should have read closer in the first place. Do you not think that providing primmies with historical parallels to their views might make them more confident about i? Or are you hoping they're just interested because it's "new"? If it's the latter maybe it'd work, make it look as old, boring and retread as possible then.

I think you're right, in that recent anarcho-primitivism is part of an older current of romantic critiques of capitalism and industrialism/modernity that have always been part of the authoritarian and libertarian socialist and communist movements.

Recent anarcho-primitivism in the form that has been imported from the USA draws mostly on the writings of Zerzan and Perlman, both of whom are part of a post-new left current influenced by situationism and ecology -- and thus cannot be seen as equivalent to earlier pre-marxist 'primiivists' even if the label was similar.

nah i think it's important to show that their ideas and critiques (if one could call them that) have popped up time and time again, sometimes in an even more reactionary garb and sometimes in a much more nuanced and interesting way. basically it's important to shove something down the throat of assholes who say "well it doe's offer and interesting critique", but in reality the critiques are hackneyed and useless. It's like having a conference on computer virus's and someone asshole standing up and saying the solution is to get rid of computers. yes it's right in one sense but about as much use as a spare arse!

yeah Lazlo but what u got to accept is that Hakim Bey, Zerzan and the rest of these post leftist primmo's basically steal the rhetoric of the situationists and anti work theorists, indulge a very crude reading of Marx and the division of labour, then mix in some atrocious deep ecology and serve with a lovely side order of post mathusian crisis theory often sprinkled with the some retarded Gaianesque wank about healing nature.

Don't you think that 'critiques' will vary depending on the particular historical context and theoretical tradition?

You surely aren't saying that 15th century millennarians had a situationist analysis, so what are you saying?

How did your reply appear before my post?

Anyway, I agree about the warmed-over nature of much of Zerzan et al' theories -- but that's not the same as saying they've got no interesting contribution. Maybe what people find interesting is the remnants of the zerowork stuff mixed with ecology. What's wrong about not reading it in the original Italian publication?

cos most of the anti work shit is based on a decietfully lumbering of syndicalists, communists and others with a fetishism of work, they then go onto present their arguments against a straw person whilst offering absolutely nothing new to the debate.

I mean they paint anarcho syndicalists and council communists as some sort of soviet socialist realist workers, which is a blatant lie. As if we want to seize the means of production so we can keep them as they are. Anyway if you want a critque of production techniques you can get it in Capital.

"It would be possible to write quite a history of inventions made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class"

Hmm, I don't really know much abt the ins and outs of primitvism, but I read Disourse on Inequality by Rousseau and thought "hmmm, maybe he has something interesting to say" but then i read mutual aid by kropotkin and quickly chamged my mind again